DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 10.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Tool storage device (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. racks (paragraph 0024)
pressurized air ejection unit (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. a nozzle body disposed in the air blow box and a control valve (paragraph 0016)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function (as cited above), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A tool transport device transporting a tool between a machine tool including a tool magazine holding a plurality of tools and a tool storage device storing a plurality of tools”. It is unclear whether claim 1 positively requires the machine tool including a tool magazine holding a plurality of tools and a tool storage device storing a plurality of tools, or if this is merely describing the intended use of the tool transport device. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as referring to the intended use.
The limitation “A tool transport device transporting a tool…” is further unclear since it is written as if it were a method step (‘transporting”) whereas the claim is to an apparatus. It is suggested this be amended to recite --A tool transport device for transporting a tool…--, for example.
Claim 4, lines 5-6 recite “the loading operation and the ejecting operation” after establishing “another one of the loading operation and ejecting operation”, leading to confusion as to which of the loading operation and the ejecting operation are being referenced.
Claim 4 is also generally unclear given various alternatives (“or” limitations) and the use of apparent exceptions (“but”) in conjunction with the above. It is not necessarily clear what operations are encompassed within each alternative limitation (“or”). It is also unclear how one operation can precede another one but also overlap. The full scope of the claimed operations executed by the controller is thus not entirely clear. Claim 4 will be interpreted according to the examiner’s best understanding.
Claims 5 and 6 each recite “the loading operation”. Again, it is unclear to which this refers in view of at least two having been previously established.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (JP6775704, cited in IDS, with reference to translation) in view of Ikeda et al. (JP2009131937, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Yasuda et al. discloses a tool transport device (10) [for] transporting a tool (T1, T2) between a machine tool (400) including a tool magazine (e.g. paragraph 80; Fig. 8) holding a plurality of tools and a tool storage device (200 or 250) storing a plurality of tools, comprising: a moving device (300) having a moving table (332) and configured to move the moving table to a working position set for the tool magazine and a working position set for the tool storage device (paragraph 21); a tool attachment/detachment robot (330) arranged on the moving table; and a controller (50) configured to control operations of the moving device and the tool attachment/detachment robot (paragraphs 26-27).
Yasuda does not disclose an air blow device arranged on the moving table, wherein the air blow device has: an air blow box having an opening for loading and unloading of the tool and having therein a space able to receive the tool; and a pressurized air ejection unit configured to eject pressurized air into the air blow box. However, Ikeda et al. discloses a tool transport device having an air blow device (4, 6) arranged on a moving table (5), wherein the air blow device has: an air blow box (4) having an opening (defined by inner wall 4a) for loading and unloading of a tool (2) and having therein a space able to receive the tool (e.g. as shown in Fig. 6); and a pressurized air ejection unit (6 - essentially having a nozzle in the blow box in the form of opening 4b and a control valve 30, see paragraph 20) configured to eject pressurized air into the air blow box (e.g. paragraph 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an air blow device arranged on the moving table of Yasuda since it would allow for cleaning, lubricating, and rust-proofing tools when attaching, detaching, and exchanging tools (Ikeda, paragraph 1). Furthermore, in view of the controller of Yasuda generally controlling the overall apparatus, it would have further been obvious for the controller to be configured to control the air blow device in order to have similarly automated this feature and its operations.
Claim 2: Further referring to Ikeda, and similarly as discussed above, the pressurized air ejection unit includes: a nozzle body (essentially the opening 4b) disposed in the air blow box so as to eject pressurized air supplied from a pressurized air supply source; and a control valve (30) controlled by the controller (it is generally controlled by undescribed control means, paragraph 21, and so it would have been obvious to have controlled it by the controller as discussed for claim 1 above) so as to control supply of pressurized air to the nozzle body.
Claim 3: Referring to Yasuda, the controller is configured to execute, as operations for extracting the tool from the tool magazine (e.g. transporting a tool from the tool storage unit 250 or the machine tool 400 to the tool setup device 200 - paragraph 49), at least a moving operation of moving the moving table (332) to the working position set for the tool magazine (e.g. Fig. 8), and an extracting operation of causing the tool attachment/detachment robot to extract the tool from the tool magazine (the tool would have to be removed from the magazine to be transported back to the storage device). Ikeda further teaches, with respect to using the air blow box following extracting a tool from a machine tool (see paragraph 28), a loading operation of loading the extracted tool into the air blow box (e.g. Fig. 6), an ejecting operation of ejecting pressurized air from the nozzle body for a predetermined time by opening the control valve of the pressurized air ejection unit (paragraph 28), an unloading operation of causing the tool attachment/detachment robot to unload the tool from the air blow box (paragraph 29), and a stopping operation of stopping ejection of pressurized air from the nozzle body by closing the control valve of the pressurized air ejection unit (the air would be stopped at some point via valve 30, e.g. paragraph 26).
Claim 4: The controller is configured to execute the moving operation and the extracting operation sequentially (the robot must be moved into position before it can extract the tool and so these steps must be sequential), then execute the loading operation and the ejecting operation simultaneously or such that one of the loading operation and ejecting operation precedes another one of the loading operation and ejecting operation (e.g. for subsequent tool changing operations) but the loading operation and the ejecting operation overlap each other for a predetermined time (implied by the stopping of air being at the same time as final grabbing of the tool, which suggests some overlap between the ejecting and loading steps - Ikeda, paragraph 26), and then execute the unloading operation and the stopping operation simultaneously or such that one of the unloading operation and stopping operation precedes another one of the unloading operation and stopping operation (e.g. for subsequent tool changing operations).
Claims 7-10: The air blow box has a discharge port open to a bottom surface thereof (the chips would exit the box area through one of the openings thereof as they could not indefinitely accumulate, noting also that “bottom” is relative). The examiner further takes Official Notice that filters are commonly provided in debris removal systems for the purpose of collecting the debris e.g. for later disposal and/or recycling of air or fluids used in the system, and so it would have been obvious for the air blow device to have at a position under the air blow box (noting that “under” is relative), a filter member for capturing chips.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0067840) in view of Ikeda et al.
Claim 1: Fujimoto et al. discloses a tool transport device (10) [for] transporting a tool between a machine tool (112, 117, 121) including a tool magazine (e.g. “tool magazine” in paragraph 51 and/or tool rest 131, paragraph 44) holding a plurality of tools and a tool storage device (stocker 151) storing a plurality of tools, comprising: a moving device having a moving table (21/23) and configured to move the moving table to a working position (31A) set for the tool magazine and a working position (31C) set for the tool storage device (paragraph 53); and a tool attachment/detachment robot (31) arranged on the moving table (paragraph 55). While a controller is not explicitly recited, the examiner submits that automation of the ”automatic tool changer”, in particular in conjunction with the use of a robot 31, would necessitate or at least render obvious a controller configured to control operations of the moving device and the tool attachment/detachment robot in order to allow for said automation.
Fujimoto does not disclose an air blow device arranged on the moving table, wherein the air blow device has: an air blow box having an opening for loading and unloading of the tool and having therein a space able to receive the tool; and a pressurized air ejection unit configured to eject pressurized air into the air blow box. However, Ikeda et al. discloses a tool transport device having an air blow device (4, 6) arranged on a moving table (5), wherein the air blow device has: an air blow box (4) having an opening (defined by inner wall 4a) for loading and unloading of a tool (2) and having therein a space able to receive the tool (e.g. as shown in Fig. 6); and a pressurized air ejection unit (6 - essentially having a nozzle in the blow box in the form of opening 4b and a control valve 30, see paragraph 20) configured to eject pressurized air into the air blow box (e.g. paragraph 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an air blow device arranged on the moving table of Fujimoto since it would allow for cleaning, lubricating, and rust-proofing tools when attaching, detaching, and exchanging tools (Ikeda, paragraph 1). Furthermore, in view of the general automation of Fujimoto, it would have further been obvious for a controller to be configured to control the air blow device in order to have similarly automated this feature and its operations.
Claim 2: Further referring to Ikeda, and similarly as discussed above, the pressurized air ejection unit includes: a nozzle body (essentially the opening 4b) disposed in the air blow box so as to eject pressurized air supplied from a pressurized air supply source; and a control valve (30) controlled by the controller (it is generally controlled by undescribed control means, paragraph 21, and so it would have been obvious to have controlled it by the controller as discussed for claim 1 above) so as to control supply of pressurized air to the nozzle body.
Claim 3: Referring to Fujimoto, the apparatus (and implicitly or obviously a controller thereof) is configured to execute, as operations for extracting the tool from the tool magazine (e.g. transporting a tool from 131 to 151), at least a moving operation of moving the moving table (21/23) to the working position set for the tool magazine (31A), and an extracting operation of causing the tool attachment/detachment robot to extract the tool from the tool magazine (paragraph 56). Ikeda further teaches, with respect to using the air blow box following extracting a tool from a machine tool (see paragraph 28), a loading operation of loading the extracted tool into the air blow box (e.g. Fig. 6), an ejecting operation of ejecting pressurized air from the nozzle body for a predetermined time by opening the control valve of the pressurized air ejection unit (paragraph 28), an unloading operation of causing the tool attachment/detachment robot to unload the tool from the air blow box (paragraph 29), and a stopping operation of stopping ejection of pressurized air from the nozzle body by closing the control valve of the pressurized air ejection unit (the air would be stopped at some point via valve 30, e.g. paragraph 26).
Claim 4: The apparatus (and implicitly or obviously a controller thereof) is configured to execute the moving operation and the extracting operation sequentially (the robot must be moved into position before it can extract the tool and so these steps must be sequential), then execute the loading operation and the ejecting operation simultaneously or such that one of the loading operation and ejecting operation precedes another one of the loading operation and ejecting operation (e.g. for subsequent tool changing operations) but the loading operation and the ejecting operation overlap each other for a predetermined time (implied by the stopping of air being at the same time as final grabbing of the tool, which suggests some overlap between the ejecting and loading steps - Ikeda, paragraph 26), and then execute the unloading operation and the stopping operation simultaneously or such that one of the unloading operation and stopping operation precedes another one of the unloading operation and stopping operation (e.g. for subsequent tool changing operations).
Claims 7-10: The air blow box has a discharge port open to a bottom surface thereof (the chips would exit the box area through one of the openings thereof as they could not indefinitely accumulate, noting also that “bottom” is relative). The examiner further takes Official Notice that filters are commonly provided in debris removal systems for the purpose of collecting the debris e.g. for later disposal and/or recycling of air or fluids used in the system, and so it would have been obvious for the air blow device to have at a position under the air blow box (noting that “under” is relative), a filter member for capturing chips.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. and Ikeda et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR20210003968, with reference to translation).
Claim 5: Yasuda et al. and Ikeda et al. teach a tool transport device substantially as claimed except for wherein the controller is configured to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to rotate the tool about an axis of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box. However, Kim et al. teaches cleaning a machining tool wherein the tool is rotated while air is blown thereon (paragraphs 6, 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to rotate the tool about an axis of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box, to remove foreign substances around the tool (Id.).
Claim 11: The air blow box has a discharge port open to a bottom surface thereof (the chips would exit the box area through one of the openings thereof as they could not indefinitely accumulate, noting also that “bottom” is relative). The examiner further takes Official Notice that filters are commonly provided in debris removal systems for the purpose of collecting the debris e.g. for later disposal and/or recycling of air or fluids used in the system, and so it would have been obvious for the air blow device to have at a position under the air blow box (noting that “under” is relative), a filter member for capturing chips.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. and Ikeda et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR20210003968, with reference to translation).
Claim 5: Fujimoto et al. and Ikeda et al. teach a tool transport device substantially as claimed except for wherein the controller is configured to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to rotate the tool about an axis of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box. However, Kim et al. teaches cleaning a machining tool wherein the tool is rotated while air is blown thereon (paragraphs 6, 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to rotate the tool about an axis of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box, to remove foreign substances around the tool (Id.).
Claim 11: The air blow box has a discharge port open to a bottom surface thereof (the chips would exit the box area through one of the openings thereof as they could not indefinitely accumulate, noting also that “bottom” is relative). The examiner further takes Official Notice that filters are commonly provided in debris removal systems for the purpose of collecting the debris e.g. for later disposal and/or recycling of air or fluids used in the system, and so it would have been obvious for the air blow device to have at a position under the air blow box (noting that “under” is relative), a filter member for capturing chips.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. and Ikeda et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0402541).
Claim 6: Yasuda et al. and Ikeda et al. teach a tool transport device substantially as claimed except for wherein the controller is configured to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to reciprocate the tool in an axial direction of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box. However, Sano et al. teaches blowing a tool wherein the tool is reciprocated in an axial direction of the tool for a predetermined time by an arm 53 gripping it (paragraph 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to reciprocate the tool in an axial direction of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box, so that dust and/or swarf adhering to the shank portion of the tool can be efficiently removed (Id.).
Claim 12: The air blow box has a discharge port open to a bottom surface thereof (the chips would exit the box area through one of the openings thereof as they could not indefinitely accumulate, noting also that “bottom” is relative). The examiner further takes Official Notice that filters are commonly provided in debris removal systems for the purpose of collecting the debris e.g. for later disposal and/or recycling of air or fluids used in the system, and so it would have been obvious for the air blow device to have at a position under the air blow box (noting that “under” is relative), a filter member for capturing chips.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. and Ikeda et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0402541).
Claim 6: Fujimoto et al. and Ikeda et al. teach a tool transport device substantially as claimed except for wherein the controller is configured to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to reciprocate the tool in an axial direction of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box. However, Sano et al. teaches blowing a tool wherein the tool is reciprocated in an axial direction of the tool for a predetermined time by an arm 53 gripping it (paragraph 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller to, in the loading operation, cause the tool attachment/detachment robot to reciprocate the tool in an axial direction of the tool for a predetermined time after loading the tool into the air blow box, so that dust and/or swarf adhering to the shank portion of the tool can be efficiently removed (Id.).
Claim 12: The air blow box has a discharge port open to a bottom surface thereof (the chips would exit the box area through one of the openings thereof as they could not indefinitely accumulate, noting also that “bottom” is relative). The examiner further takes Official Notice that filters are commonly provided in debris removal systems for the purpose of collecting the debris e.g. for later disposal and/or recycling of air or fluids used in the system, and so it would have been obvious for the air blow device to have at a position under the air blow box (noting that “under” is relative), a filter member for capturing chips.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 5,107,910, JP2009160699, EP0420039, and DE2754636 disclose additional examples of tool cleaning devices employing blown air.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726